I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?

quote:

---

U.N. says the living conditions in Gaza have deteriorated faster than expected, and the U.N. says the area has already become unlivable.

---

quote:

---

RABBI JOSEPH BERMAN: Yeah, you know, I’m concerned about this legislation. We need to fight it and oppose it. And what I’m really concerned about is something that you mentioned earlier, Amy, and that is what’s happening with the people in Gaza right now, who only have a few, maybe four, hours of electricity a day. There is an incredible shortage of drinkable water. There’s a very, very high level of food insecurity and just immense, immense suffering that is happening right now in Gaza. And that is because of the siege, that is led by Israel, with the support of Egypt. And so there needs to be an end to that siege.

---

_______________________________________________________ Why siotenly:

quote:

---

The criminalization of political speech and activism against Israel has become one of the gravest threats to free speech in the West. In France, activists have been arrested and prosecuted for wearing T-shirts advocating a boycott of Israel. The U.K. has enacted a series of measures designed to outlaw such activism. In the U.S., governors compete with one another over who can implement the most extreme regulations to bar businesses from participating in any boycotts aimed even at Israeli settlements, which the world regards as illegal. On U.S. campuses, punishment of pro-Palestinian students for expressing criticisms of Israel is so commonplace that the Center for Constitutional Rights refers to it as the Palestine Exception to free speech.

---

Nope, you are wrong, It may be based on old policies, but it is new because specifically: :

quote:

---

Ryan Grim, Democracy Now: They thought it was a rather simple kind of extension of a policy that had been in place for decades, merely extending it to the EU and the U.N. But, in fact, it comes with theseaccording to the ACLU, these draconian penalties.

​

. . . if you read the bill itself, the penalties aren’t mentioned. You have to reference an underlying statute that it amends, and then, once you get to the underlying statute, then you see the million-dollar fine and the 20-year prison sentence, which the ACLU says, because you’ve brought that underlying statute into play, that that criminal statute could be brought in by a judge or a prosecutor.

​

In a letter to lawmakers, Dylan Williams of J Street wrote, quote, This bill could give Attorney General Jeff Sessions the power to prosecute any American who chooses not to buy settlement products for a felony offense.

---

quote:

---

. . . when the bill was first unveiled, the bill seeks to amend two laws the Export Administration Act of 1979 and the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, and the potential penalties for violating this bill are steep: a minimum $250,000 civil penalty and a maximum criminal penalty of $1 million and 20 years imprisonment, as stipulated in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

---

Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes. Nope, you are wrong, see above quotes. You are wrong. Specifically, the draconian penalties would make a dramatic difference and impact on violating the First Amendment:

quote:

---

The ACLU wrote, quote, We take no position for or against the effort to boycott Israel or any foreign country, for that matter. However, we do assert that the government cannot, consistent with the First Amendment, punish U.S. persons based solely on their expressed political beliefs,

---

_______________________________________________________More related quotes:

quote:

---

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) helped craft the bill, and made its passage one of the group’s top lobbying priorities.

---

quote:

---

AIPAC, in its 2017 lobbying agenda, identified passage of this bill as one of its top lobbying priorities for the year

---

quote:

---

RABBI JOSEPH BERMAN: AIPAC is a very effective lobby. And I think, in many ways, they’re not that different from something like the National Rifle Association, which keeps Congress from passing much-needed, incredibly reasonable gun control in this country.

---

_______________________________________________________The instant replay referees have reviewed the tape, the score has been corrected: Dronestar 4, CatsI 0._______________________________________________________

quote:

---

Criminalizing Critics of Israel
Zcomm » Criminalizing Critics of Israel

---

quote:

---

Criminally Outlawing Support for Boycott
43 senators 29 Republicans and 14 Democrats
234 co-sponsors: 63 Democrats and 174 Republicans.
Zcomm » Criminally Outlawing Support for Boycott

---

And, of course, no one's going to be asked to take this pledge, because that was clearly hyperbole.Since you're all being frustratingly obtuse and refusing to actually explain anything in detail I actually went and read the bill, as it's not long.It does seek to extend the scope of the previous act. It proposes that people should be prevented not only from doing things 'with intent to comply with, further, or support any boycott fostered or imposed by a foreign country' but also form 'request(ing) to impose any boycott by a foreign country' against a US ally. (the amendment if passed makes the already clunky legal language a mess - but that's another thing).But I am a little confused here; and think I may be misunderstanding something about US law here. What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to? Does this actually cover someone who runs a business headquartered in America doing their normal business; or does it mean something to do with government employees? If the former, then the law strikes me as unjust. I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies. Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible.I'm thinking it means the latter, though - that this doesn't apply to private companies but rather those involved in government business, since it asks the President to issue regulations prohibiting such-and-such. Does the President have any authority to impose regulations on the actions of private business? Can any of you Americans clarify this?

Hi Caff,I presume you posted just after my last lengthy and informative post. Yes, CatsI and I are specifically arguing about the word "new" in the hyperbolic pledge. I presume CatsI, when realizing he has lost the argument will then try to desperately interpret the law, using his vast imaginary law degrees, to his liking. I am not an international lawyer, so I, like some others, won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions of free speech violations . . .

quote:

---

RYAN GRIM: And that’s one of the things that the ACLU was also deeply concerned about, that nobody, of course, is forced to do business with Israeli companies in the Occupied Territories, but if you say that you’re not doing business there because you object to the political circumstances, then, all of a sudden, you’re getting caught up in the statute here, or you’d get caught up in this Indiana law, whereas if you were just quiet about it and kept your opinions to yourself, thenyou know, then you’re not in any legal or commercial trouble. And that is kind of the definition of a freedom of speech issue.

---

Above all, I think it helps to carefully consider the source of the words to this new bill: AIPAC. If you think Israel's continued oppression and low-level genocide of Palestinians and the further stealing of Palestinian land is a good thing, a model of stablizing actions in the middle east, I guess you'll find the new bill very agreeable.Zcomm » Criminalizing Critics of IsraelEdited by dronestar, : typos, grrr

Clearly, but still retarded. Dro has already proven himself to me to not waste my time on. Hyperbole is about all he's got. But I'm glad you read the bill, that makes two of us that I know of.I'm spending this time because I respect you - and I appreciate the conversation.Dro admits in Message 18 that he "won't presume to interpret/define the legal definitions". So he's basically useless. Unless you like fatuous hyperbole?Look, he's resorted to quoting other peoples' opinions on the matter in lieu of providing his own opinions backed up by quotes from the actual bill.If you want to get into it, I'm down. But I'm not gonna waste my time on Dro. Sure. So as I said: this isn't new. By "persons" they mean companies, not individual citizens. But yeah, the wording sucks. Basically: "Don't officially boycott our allies". I agree. The problem is companies essentially going: "We're against our Jewish ally, and with the Arab League." How's that for hyperbole? I mean, if I wanted to pull a Dro, I'd be talking about how much his OP was fostered by his raging antisemitism... but I won't stoop to his level I think it means that the feds don't want companies jumping on a "boycott-the-jews" bandwagon because Israel, is, actually our ally. And the Arab League is not. Do they have the right to tax that business? Sure, the wording sucks. But your interpretation doesn't fit the intent, as I understand it.It's not about individual citizens "calling" for a boycott, it's about companies officially participating in a boycott against one of our allies. Especially because the boycott in question spawned from a group that is against us.That's how I'm interpreting it. No hyperbole.

Here is all the words that you wrote to me that were not quotations: I don't care about your stupid quotes on other peoples' opinions on this matter. Tell me what you think, no bullshit, or have a nice day.

I'll bite since I cheered the op. So, as opposed to looking at the reasons people/companies in America might want to boycott Israel and whether they might be justified, the fact alone that the Arab league would like them to do it is enough to justify laws against it? Isn't boycotting a fundamental tenet of capitalism?I thought I'd read this bill and find little to criticise, it's a laughing stock. The first of the 'findings' paints the UNHRC as a group conspiring to 'stigmatize and isolate Israel' with 'systemic, politically motivated assaults on its legitimacy' and you're nit-picking Dro's hyperbole? So the term 'politically motivated' is used redundantly rather than representing some observation of nefarious intent. The very act of a boycott is intended to induce change in the recipient, boycotting a nation is necessarily 'politically motivated'. (2) Add the US and Saudi Arabia to that list!
(3) A list of companies who manufacture, or have business relations with entities that manufacture the machines of war would be good too. I'm guessing that would largely target the US.They aren't attacking Israels legitimacy, they're attacking its human rights violations beyond its legitimate borders. Is it noble to unconditionally support your allies against boycotts all the time or immoral depending on the reasons for the boycott? Secondly, all Allies are protected from state boycotts but Israel is so (special?) that it gets protection even from intergovernmental intervention.Further 'which will have the effect of furthering or supporting' doesn't say anything about official and neither does this: So it's seems this 'official' interpretation isn't really supported and could at least potentially see companies fined for divesting from Israel regardless of their 'official' stance. Not only that but it does seek to punish free expression of political will.Now here's my hyperbolic take on it. The US govt is a greedy, genocidal maniac. The Israeli govt is a greedy genocidal maniac. Therefore the US supports Israel. Human rights be damned!

Yes, that was purposeful. Since you previously stated: . . . I’d thought I'd go with non-personal evidence. However, you again had criticism. It seems you are desperate that I severely limit my evidence to sock-puppets and Cuneiform tablets? Maybe then, by applying fanatical restrictions to my posts, our debates could be more competitive for you? Well, hope springs eternal. But you are again wrong, not everything was from personal opinions in Message 16. For example the main item, the first paragraph of the post, the very reason for my thread, was a fact from the UN:

quote:

---

U.N. says the living conditions in Gaza have deteriorated faster than expected, and the U.N. says the area has already become unlivable.

---

From a UN report:https://unsco.unmissions.org/...ars_later_-_11_july_2017.pdf Yeah, I've noted the more deeply one militantly delves into the legal aspects; searching for the "precise" definition of a word, postulating an "unclear term," claiming an "ancient" precedent, the more one hopes to remove oneself from the spirit of the letter/the big picture/the main argument.Someone on the forum had a great quip when people desperately do this in their arguments, a pity I don’t remember the exact quote.Religious literalists use this technique with the Bible when they blindly and militantly follow a throwaway line of text and then go on to dismiss the entirety of the overall message of god.And black-hearted people choose to hide under their preferred legal definition of words to continue harming/oppressing/obfuscating/marginalizing/justifying inaction.The US did this to Rwanda in April 1994 when the African nation suffered atrocities. While genocide continued, the US gathered and discussed, on the sideline, whether or not the exact legal term "genocide" was appropriate. President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide, a million people were murdered, but buried the information in definitions to justify his inaction.And this is exactly what you are doing CatsI. You are already aware of my body of work of evidence on the forum. I can even show you additional facts from the UN, Human Rights groups, and Health Organizations. I can list opinions of Palestinians who are currently living the hell of Israel's cruel oppression. I can show you photos of dead Palestinian children without limbs.The facts are that Israel oppressively controls the water, food, employment, electricity, movement, and health care of Palestinians. Israel has murdered hundred times more innocent Palestinian civilians (collective punishment is a war crime) than Islamic terrorists have murdered in Israel. Israel even made studies to find out what minimal food sustenance is needed to prevent mass starvation to make sure their genocide is kept under the world's radar.I am sure you, like Bill Clinton's Rwanda fiasco, are aware of some of this, even if not in detail. Yeah, when Crashfrog was desperately losing a debate, he would also make/insinuate pathetic personal attacks. For example, when Crashfrog was losing a battle about President Obama's harmful actions, he desperately called me a bigot. CatsI, you are exactly like Crashfrog. Your unwarranted personal attack diminishes yourself, your parents, and the forum (especially when others choose to stay silent).And it is that inappropriate remark that I would like to similarly finish my post with. There is an ongoing attack on innocent women and children in the world. The US government is enabling the attack with military weapons, military assistance, and foreign contributions. The US government would extend a law with draconian penalties to prevent its own population from interfering, and allowing the genocide to continue.Evil flourishes when good people do nothing.Crashfrog, errrm, I mean CatsI showed what side he is on.Forum, what side are you on?

The big picture you've painted is a false narrative.Let me know if you ever want to get around to discussing the bill in question.

When it comes to Israel-Palestinian relations thre is likely to be such a fog of propaganda even judging such photos is nowhere near as obvious as you are implying. You seem to be utterly ignoring the provocations of the Palestinians against Israel for instance, the deaths to Israelis they have caused, the constant din of hatred toward Israel that is part of their religion and now embedded in world opinion as well. Certainly the Palestinian people are oppressed but most of that comes from the Arab world, not from Israel, from their own Palestinian leaders who take all the aid given for their improvement and use it for other purposes. It does not come from Israel. It is useful to keep the Palestinians as pawns for making Israel out to be the bad guy and keep up the stream of hatred toward Israel. Unfortunately I'm not up on recent developments -- since I haven't followed this thread carefully I may have missed any actual facts you've offered -- but the historical facts are as I'm describing them. I'm sure Israel is at fault in many ways, but unless you give some sense of being aware of the other side of the story I can't take your assessment very seriously. Well seriously OK because propaganda is powerful and dangerous but I'm sure you know I mean I can't take it as truthful. What are your sources for this? Considering all the aid Israel has given to help build up the Palestinians, which has not benefitted them thanks to reasons I've mentioned above, there has to be some historical information that you are not taking into account here if there is even any truth to this claim. Your sources? You really do need to consider that you may not be getting the whole truth. I have a feeling you are confining yourself only to the pro-Palestinian propaganda. And that would include the UN.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hi Faith,Although I disagree with your overall stance, that was a very nicely worded post. It contained a respectful tone toward my viewpoint, the self-admitted humility of not knowing all aspects, humble requests for more information, and the uncowering strength of your personal convictions.Sheesh, I'd forgotten I was on the EvC forum.Seriously, good job.

Thanks, stiff bodied one. I don't see how your point can be missed. Boycotts are a legitimate expression of speech for the express purpose of applying political pressure. I understand that people who don't appreciate or agree with the cause of the boycotters or who hate the boycotter don't like the idea, but government sanctions targeting boycotts directly target free speech.Now I under that the UN, the Arab League, and the European Union are not entitled to first amendment protection. But the huge fines and sentences applied by this law, at least by my first reading, target American citizens who might agree with a boycott that may have been first suggested by, say the European Union.And although I have not found the applicable text in the proposed bill, the comments provided by the sponsors suggest that the Bill applies not just to Israel, but other US allies. I can understand when fundies don't get this. They are afraid that any criticism of Israel will bring about the end times. But I had thought that other folks were able to distinguish between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Isreal. Apparently, such distinctions are more subtle than I thought. Yikes. I guess we cannot agree on everything.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I must say that your response also made me wonder if we were still at EvC. What a nice post, thank you.Now I have to do some research. I hope I'm up to it.

Since I am familiar with many campaigns to smear Israel, the first thing I looked for was something about the photos you claim show Israeli atrocities against Palestinians, and was surprised to so quickly turn up information about exactly what I suspected: journalistic fraud for the purpose of making Israel look like a genocidal monster. A Palestinian Journalist's Blood Libel Against Israel: I also think of the Israelis as committed to avoiding civilian casualties in their attacks on their enemies, contrary to the propaganda that accuses them of genocidal intent, along with Palestinian refusal to evacuate areas targeted by Israel and warned by Israel to evacuate; and here's an article that addresses that: Who Is Killing Palestinian Children?Haven't yet found anything on the claim that Israel controls Palestinian water and electricity and everything else but here's a page of headlines that turned up at Frontpage when I searched.ABE: I know I shouldn't throw a whole Google page at you but sometimes it helps to get across the range of opinion on a certain subject just through its list of headlines. I hope I can come back and put up some more detailed information on all this but as you can see there is a lot of it out there contradicting the claim that the Palestinians are the victims, or the only victims.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Agreed, it's not a question of if this bill seeks to limit free speech but how much and why. It would seem odd that Israel is mentioned specifically in the absence of any reason for it, nevertheless there is still the issue of free speech and the morality of unconditional support for allies despite human rights violations. I'm yet to grasp the rationale behind holding our nations and governments to a lower standard of morality than we hold ourselves. I'm not aware of Dro's entire posting history so I'm not sure if CatsEyes charge of antismeitism is based on some genuine antisemitic views he holds or not. I can't however see any antisemitism in the OP, so in this case at least, the charge appears to be a cop out. Israel=/=Judaism. Atrocities committed by Israel are not a reflection of Judaism but the geopolitical situation. Hyperbole is never intended to be agreed with literally. It's used to dramatise a message. I'll be back later to defend the underlying message of both my hyperbole and Dro's. For now I must return to work. ABE - more important things to argue.Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.

I read a few of front page mags articles. Do you think they aren't propaganda? The main message I got from those articles was that extremist Muslims are an existential threat to western civilisation. That we should all be terrified. Fear mongering nonsense with a few quotes and claims about faked pictures and such.Here's the introduction from the Amnesty International annual report 16/17; It's a long report, plenty of juicy bits. Oh to be a US tax payer, I truly do feel sorry for all of you. So do you look at this as Israel 'winning' or something? The 'measured response' to small arms fire is to kill children with air strikes and artillery. One of the key points in one of front page mags articles was that free speech is suppressed by Islam, go figure. We're in a thread specifically related to a bill which restricts the free speech of Americans, go figure. Any 'free speech' of a company is necessarily derived from people, either the people who own it or the people who work there. Irony brings me to my next point.Here are the sources, from history learning site, a U.K based site that claims to be and seems unbiased to me.
Palestine 1918-1948
McMahon Agreement 1915
The Balfour Declaration 1918To summarise the history -
1517. The territory known as Palestine is incorporated into the Ottoman Empire.1915. The British convinced the Palestinians to fight with them in WW2 based on the understanding they would be freed from foriegn rule. The Brits deny this. Fight your rulers to be ruled by us is not a compelling argument, so I am inclined to believe that the Palestinians certainly thought they were getting their land in return.1917. The Balfour Declaration is a three paragraph letter in which the UK pledged its support for the creation of Israel in direct conflict with its promise to the Palestinians.1920-1948. Under British rule as mandated by the League of Nations, Jews begin migrating to Palestine. The percentage of Jews in Palestine went from around 10% to more than 30%. Jews and Arabs alike used terrorism to put pressure on British rule.1948. With the added 'justification' of having been persecuted in Germany the Jews get Israel and the rest is history.So what I find rather funny here is that the Jews are basically guilty of doing exactly that which you're terrified of Muslims doing and that you subsequently hold apparently unwavering support for Israel.Here's the Balfour Declaration, for a bit of historical context.

quote:

---

November 2nd, 1917

​

Dear Lord Rothschild,

​

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved, by the Cabinet:

​

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

​

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

​

Yours,

​

Arthur James Balfour

---